Chamber and committees

I agree with all your questions. In the papers that we have received, there is no explanation of why the instrument is required. We have seen media reports about how some councils have found it difficult to get supplies of the right quality, but we do not know how widespread an issue that is, whether it is on-going or why that is the case.

The original set of regulations was introduced in April 2021—a significant length of time after we left the European Union and well into the pandemic. I am puzzled, therefore, as to why an amendment is required now, so soon after the regulations were first brought in. Why was an escape chute—if I can put it in that way—from meeting the standard not considered as part of the original regulations? Why is that being brought in now? There are issues with timing and so on, and I would like an explanation of why the amendment is necessary. We should try to get those explanations from the minister before we proceed.

I think that we have moved on, convener. It is clear that there is some excellent practice going on in various institutions, much of which has been reflected in today’s session, but I am not clear about how we are ensuring that everybody is applying that best practice. How do we target those who, through no fault of their own, might need extra help and support but are oblivious to the support that is available? How do we make that happen and ensure that everybody is like the people who are here today?

I am keen to understand whether we know that we are addressing additional support needs. The only measurement that I can see is the one that has been identified by the Scottish Children’s Services Coalition this week, which highlighted a sharp decline, of around 59 per cent, in the number of legally binding education support plans. That is a significant reduction, and only a tiny number of those who have been identified with additional support needs get such a plan. I want to understand whether we are addressing the need and how we know whether we are addressing it.

That is for Greg Dempster first, and then for Douglas Hutchison.

That is helpful. Douglas, would you like to comment?

What does Margaret Wilson think?

I will finish there, convener.

Should we not be moving to scenario 2 already? There has been significant disruption to education caused not only by the staff absences that you have talked about but by pupil absences. A lot of pupils are on study leave and are sitting prelim exams now. If we do not know what the revision support advice will be, how can we prepare pupils for those exams? Should we not be moving to scenario 2 now, so that we can crack on with that?

I do not want to put words in your mouth, but that is a pretty clear message. You are smiling, which indicates that we should be moving towards scenario 2 so that we can crack on with that.

That is helpful. We are talking about a third of all pupils now being in this category, and the mainstreaming approach is quite a radical change. I get constant complaints from teachers, pupils and parents that there is just not adequate support. You say that there has never been a time when it has been adequate. Has it got worse or better?

Thanks for explaining the process, but I will explain what I really want to understand. I hear from a lot of frustrated parents, teachers and pupils who feel that their needs are not being met. That affects not only the pupils with additional needs but everybody else in the class. I am keen to understand whether the situation has got better from your perspective. If not, what are you saying to Government about changing it? What are you saying to your councillors in your respective authorities about priorities? If it is not getting any better, or if, as Mr Dempster has highlighted, it is getting worse, what are we doing about it?